Return the authenticated account's purchase history with book titles, prices, dates, and statuses. Useful for spending reports ('how much have I spent on books this month?'), receipts, or finding the order_id needed for a refund or token regeneration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | Filter by order status. Omit to include all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation ("Return") and scopes to the authenticated account. It adds useful context about order_id being needed for refunds/token regeneration, but does not disclose behaviors like pagination, default limits, or how statuses are handled.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the tool's exact purpose, the second lists practical use cases. It is front-loaded, non-redundant, and every sentence contributes value. No unnecessary detail or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose and use cases, and mentions the key output fields. However, it lacks information about the 'limit' parameter, pagination behavior, default sorting, and how to use the 'status' filter. Given there is no output schema, these gaps make the description only partially complete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only 'status' has a description). The description does not explain the 'limit' parameter or add any additional meaning to 'status' beyond the schema. Since coverage is not high, the description should compensate, but it only lists output fields and use cases, leaving parameter semantics largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the authenticated account's purchase history with specific fields (book titles, prices, dates, statuses). This is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_orders' by emphasizing 'authenticated account', but does not explicitly name the alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear use cases: spending reports, receipts, and finding order_id for refunds or token regeneration. This gives strong context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes. For example, list_my_books and my_books both list authored books, and author_dashboard is a superset; list_orders and my_orders are near-duplicates; check_earnings and payout_balance both report earnings. This creates confusion and risks misselection.
Naming is inconsistent. While many tools use verb_noun (list_annotations, get_book_details), others use my_* (my_books, my_orders), bare nouns (payout_balance), or compound verbs (connect_onboard). The lack of a uniform pattern makes the set feel disjointed.
49 tools is excessive for a server, especially with at least three sets of near-duplicates. The platform is complex, but many tools could be merged (e.g., my_books and list_my_books, list_orders and my_orders). This count will overwhelm agents and increase misselection risk.
The toolset covers the core domain well: discover, purchase, read, comment, review, annotate, publish, monetize, verify, and manage payouts. Minor gaps exist, such as no update/delete annotation, no delete review, and no single-item getter for annotations/reviews, but these are not critical to the main workflows.